HC Deb 21 July 1953 vol 518 cc197-9
37. Mr. Stokes

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Excise revenue was lost in 1952 by the shipment of 6,300,000 gallons, proof, of whisky to the United States of America at a net price of 6s. 8d. a bottle.

Sir T. Moore

On a point of order. Would it be in order to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman whether the information contained in the Question is any better than that in Question No. 19?

Mr. Stokes

I shall be glad to answer that question.

Mr. Speaker

That would be completely out of order.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The reply to the Question is that any estimate of the loss of revenue would be conjectural depending on the extent to which an increase in consumption of whisky in the home market in 1952 would have been offset by a reduction for other spirits; but I have no doubt that the amount was small in comparison with the receipts in dollars that we obtained from these exports.

Mr. Stokes

The Minister will understand that what I meant was assuming that this was all sold at home, but may I ask two supplementary questions? Presumably he will have noticed the statement by the distillers that Scotch whisky sales in America have greatly increased this year? Has he seriously examined the method of sale of Scotch whisky in the United States, which is practically entirely in the hands of competitors, and is it not true that were the export price doubled in dollars, and the sales did not fall by more than half, the dollar balance would not suffer and the Exchequer would benefit greatly?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these questions are ones I have heard before and are not questions which arise out of this one, which asks specifically for information as to the loss of Excise revenue. That is the only matter about which the right hon. Gentleman has asked. So far as that is concerned, it must depend on the extent to which people, when they cannot drink whisky, drink gin.

Mr. Stokes

But may I ask the Financial Secretary whether he is aware that the art of putting down Questions is to put down a Question you do not want answered in order to ask a supplementary question to which you do want an answer? Is he also aware that neither his Department, the Ministry of Food nor the Board of Trade have yet succeeded in answering any question of mine on this subject intelligently—or truthfully?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

For years I have been a humble student of the interrogatory methods of the right hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him that when he puts down any Question to this Department he will get an answer relating to that Question and not relating to all sorts of other matters all over the shop.

Mr. Woodburn

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the export of Scotch whisky is the biggest single dollar earner of any of our exports?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

It is a very valuable export.

Mr. Stokes

In continuation of the argument of my right hon. Friend, does not the Chancellor think it is quite time that the export price of whisky in dollars was put up to a value commensurate to what it can genuinely get in the United States under proper selling conditions?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I really must decline to have to settle disputes between right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite—it would be a full-time job.

Sir T. Moore

Again on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you considered the implication in the statement by the right hon. Gentleman that no Question is put down on this Order Paper to gain information but is merely a cloak for asking another question later? Surely that is contrary to all our traditions?

Mr. Stokes

In protection of yourself, Mr. Speaker, I never said anything of the sort. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not. I said "the art"; I did not say "the fact."

Mr. Speaker

Order, order. If, in fact, a supplementary question does not arise out of the answer to the Question on the Order Paper, the Minister is quite entitled to refuse to answer it.